What Religion Can and Cannot Do

What is the Role of Religion in History?

The role of religion in history is complex. On the one hand we find religious
conviction motivating Mother Theresa to work in the slums of Calcutta, Father
Damien to serve the lepers on Molokai, Corrie ten Boom to hide Jews from the
Nazis, and Martin Luther to launch the Reformation. On the other hand, we also
have the Taliban in Afghanistan, the warfare in Northern Ireland, Muslims and
Hindus slaughtering each other during the partition of India, and innumerable
crusades, jihads, inquisitions, and persecutions. You can focus on one side or
the other and come to diametrically opposite conclusions. Either religion is the
basis for the noblest events in human history, or a negative force responsible
for the worst atrocities in history. Or both.

What role did religion play in:

The U.S. Civil Rights movement? On the one hand we have Reverend Martin
Luther King; on the other white racists defending slavery and discrimination
on Biblical grounds. Some argued, for example, that blacks had "the mark of
Cain." (Interestingly, nobody seems to have wondered if God marked Cain by
turning him white!)

The Collapse of Communism? John Paul II served as a symbol to Catholic
Poland that helped animate reforms in Communist countries. He was considered
a sufficient danger for the KGB to orchestrate a botched assassination
attempt.

Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans? I doubt if any of this animosity was
genuinely religious, even if it was carried out along religious lines. It
has much more to do with nationalism and perceived loyalties.

Some Observations

Individuals vary in commitment and priorities

At one extreme we find people whose religious belief permeates their entire
existence, who pattern their conduct closely on their religious beliefs, and who
are quite literally prepared to die rather than betray them.

On the other end of the spectrum are people whose beliefs can be described as
nominal, who may describe themselves as Catholics, Methodists or Jews but who
don't follow the practices of their religion or attend services. Why do nominal
believers even bother? In some cases they were raised in the religion and are
reluctant to sever their ties completely, or they may fear divine retribution or
bad luck if they do. Some view religion as a way of demonstrating social
conformity, or as a comforting ritual. Some may participate to the extent of attending services on
major holy days, or being married or holding funerals, but not otherwise. (One
of my all-time favorite cartoons showed a minister addressing his flock: "And
for those of you we won't see until next year's Easter Parade, Merry Christmas
and Happy New Year.") Some
may retain an attachment because of family tradition or pressure. Some view
religion as a place of refuge if things get bad.

There's a Difference Between Religion and Magic

Most of the actions just described can be labeled magic, the notion
that some intrinsically meaningless action on our part can motivate God or the
universe to act on our behalf, or avert misfortune. Isn't it absurd to believe
that the ruler of the universe cares beans about someone sitting through an hour
or so of church each week, or dropping a quarter in the collection plate, or
getting married in a church when neither party has the slightest intention of
fulfilling their vows? Isn't it preposterous to believe the ruler of the
universe will suspend cause and effect to intervene on someone's behalf just
because that person performs some ritual? Atheists think so.

And here's the surprise. So do all theologians. You will not find any
significant theologian of any religion stating that going to church, saying rote
prayers, making contributions, getting married in church, having a religious
funeral, or publicly identifying yourself with a religion are of the slightest
value in and of themselves. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are unanimous in
agreeing that personal commitment to God is paramount, and without that
commitment, observances alone are of no value. The observances are of value in
so far as they reinforce and deepen the commitment, motivate others to
commitment, and act out the commitment by doing good in the society. Believing
they have any power in and of themselves is simple superstition.

We can summarize the difference between religion and magic like this:

Religion asks "How can I conform to the will of God and the Universe?"

Magic asks "How can I get God and the Universe to conform to my
will?"

Religion can motivate people to high ideals

Mother Theresa spent her life in the slums of Calcutta. Father Maximillian
Kolbe took the place of a condemned concentration camp prisoner. Martin Luther
risked being burned at the stake, and Martin Luther King was assassinated for
leading the Civil Rights movement. Not all the ideals devoutly religious people
have served strike us as noble. Early Christian hermits spent years meditating
on isolated pillars or in contorted positions, something that strikes us as
wasted lives. Say what you will about the terrorists of 9-11, they consciously
sacrificed their lives in the name of their religious beliefs.

Religion can serve to rationalize other motives

Question: What is the penalty decreed in the Koran for adultery?

Answer: Death. At least that's what happens to women adulterers in
Islamic countries.

Only one problem with that. The Koran says:

The adulterer and the adulteress shall each be given a hundred lashes
(24:2)...The adulterer may marry only an adulteress or an idolatress; and
the adulteress may marry only an adulterer or an idolater (24:4).

It's a bit hard for adulterers and adulteresses to marry if they're put to
death, isn't it? So where does the death penalty come from? It has nothing to do
with Islam. It's all about the sexual insecurity of Middle Eastern males.

Christians are just as bad. Ask opponents of evolution how many of them
actually tithe or go to church regularly. Opposition to evolution has nothing to do with the Bible and
everything in the world to do with lashing out at authority.

Religion can serve as a symbol of group identity

In the Serbian sector of Bosnia, I saw religious icons on the office walls of
people who, from all other appearances, didn't have a shred of religious belief.
The icons had simply become a nationalistic symbol and a way to show group
solidarity.

A lot of opposition to evolution in the U.S. is less concerned with science
than with group identity. Anti-evolutionists have succeeded in equating
evolution with academic arrogance and Big Government, and opposition to it with
patriotism and family values.

Religion has little power to erase deeply-ingrained cultural traits

Thought experiment: suppose the Pope were to order all Irish Catholics to go
to the authorities and reveal everything they knew about terrorist activities,
under pain of mortal sin and excommunication. Would they do it? Suppose Muslims
were to re-establish the Caliphate, and the Caliph were to command all Muslims
to cease support of terrorist movements. Would they do it?

Religion has little power to displace other entrenched religions

The religious map of Europe and Asia is almost identical to what it was a
thousand years ago. As noted above, religion has little power to erase deeply-ingrained cultural traits,
including religions that are already established in the culture. Religions can
nibble away at the borders of rival religions, can recruit the disaffected, but
have little effect on committed members of other religions.

Religion has no power over biology

Puritanical religious codes can be very effective at making people feel
guilty about sex. They just can't stop people from having sex.

Religion can provide a template for organizing thought

Many historians believe there's an inescapable link between science and
Western monotheism.

Religion can be a convenient target

Despite the Vatican's opposition to birth control, Italy has one of the
lowest birth rates in the world. In fact, the fastest growing countries are not
Catholic at all. Most are in the Muslim world or Africa, and Christians are in
the minority in those countries. What's driving global overpopulation is not religion, but status;
the fastest growing countries are places where a man's virility and a woman's
worth are measured by how many children they can crank out.

So why do we still hear about the Vatican and birth control, even though the
Vatican's stance is a dead issue to most Catholics and religion of any kind is
utterly irrelevant to global population growth? Because it's a convenient
target, like the drunk who drops his key in a dark alley but looks under the
streetlight because the light is better there. Also, the Vatican just will not
stop raining on the sexual-liberation, abortion, and gay rights parade. Besides,
dealing with the real overpopulation issue will mean criticizing the values of
other cultures, something Western intellectuals are loath to do.

The Billy Joel song "Only the Good Die Young" is a celebration of the notion
that religious belief deadens and inhibits people. We Interrupt This Web Page
For An Important Public Service Message. Religion is not responsible for your
lousy sex life. There are a lot more people that want to date 10's than
there are 10's to go around. It's that simple. Whatever attractive personal
qualities you may have, you can be sure there's someone smarter, richer, and
sexier out there who has those same qualities. Studies have also shown that
while women tend to assess their attractiveness fairly accurately, men
consistently overrate themselves. The middle-aged comb-over is testimony to how
bad it can get. Check your personal hygiene and social skills before complaining that
religion makes society so puritanical.

So what happens if you're born into a culture where some religious belief
system is deeply entrenched and generally accepted? Your options include:

Decide that the prevailing system is valid and orient your belief and
conduct accordingly. Have an internal conversion. Honest.

Reject the prevailing system. Adopt a different system or none at all.
Honest and courageous.

Go through the motions. Recognize that you don't believe but go through
the motions so as not to offend others or attract undue attention. Honest to
yourself, dishonest to others. Also cowardly.

But suppose you want to claim membership in the religion, but it runs counter
to what you personally want to do? Or it requires you to take a stand against
something widespread in the society, and you don't want to become an outcast?
Maybe you even support the forbidden practice, or you stand to gain from it? For
people in these predicaments, there are other options, like:

Going through the motions as a personal security blanket or ritual for
avoiding bad luck.

Simply ignoring inconvenient tenets of the belief system.

Giving lip service to the belief system, but using
magic rituals in some form to nullify the harmful consequences.

Rationalizing actions as compatible with the belief system.

Co-opting the belief system to the point where attempts to practice its
original form are viewed as heretical.

Transforming the co-opted, adulterated religion into a symbol of group,
ethnic or national solidarity.

Inevitably, second-hand religion degenerates into magic. Since second-hand
believers have no true personal commitment to the belief system, they transform
it into a system of rationalizations for their own desires. The "God's Grandchildren" phenomenon is why religions rarely, if ever,
transform societies. Christianity's admonitions to forgive others, turn the
other cheek, and leave justice to God have utterly failed to eradicate blood
feuds in many parts of the Mediterranean world. Its prohibitions against
adultery don't prevent men in those cultures from having mistresses.
Christianity may have played a critical role in shaping the Western scientific
world view, but despite the fact that Western thought began in Greece and Greece
was one of the first bastions of Christianity, the Renaissance did not begin in
Greece. By that time Greece had become a typical Balkan society, vastly
different in intellectual and spiritual climate from Western Europe.
Christianity's Golden Rule did not stop Western Europeans and Americans from
holding slaves, nor did it prevent the petty backlash of Jim Crow legislation
after slavery was abolished. In all these cases, inherited Christianity was
effectively neutered by people who simply chose to ignore inconvenient tenets,
or resorted to ritual for forgiveness, or who co-opted Christianity into a
vehicle for justifying their own prejudices.

The problem with the Middle East today is not Islam. The Koran has passages
that urge forgiveness and mercy just as forcefully as the Bible. It also has
passages that justify vengeance and cruelty as much as the Old Testament. The
problem is that Islam took root in societies that almost
exclusively are driven by a manic obsession with personal status.
Hypersensitivity to personal and group insults, inability to accept defeat, and
paranoia, often bordering on clinical, regarding female sexual infidelity. And
despite its virtues, Islam failed to transform those societies. Not only did
Islam fail to transform its cultures, but the surrounding cultures co-opted
Islam into a vehicle for justifying petty revenge and sexual paranoia.